Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) id XAA13812 for ietf-pop3ext-bks; Wed, 20 May 1998 23:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.dircon.co.uk (mailhost.dircon.co.uk [194.112.50.75]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA13802 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 23:23:20 -0700 (PDT) From: postmaster@Blue_Server.equisys.com Received: from Blue_Server.equisys.com (equisys.dircon.co.uk [194.112.44.68]) by mailhost.dircon.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA13076 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 07:27:01 +0100 (BST) Received: (from Administrator@localhost) by Blue_Server.equisys.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id HAA00575; Thu, 21 May 1998 07:31:36 GMT Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 07:31:36 GMT Message-Id: <199805210731.HAA00575@Blue_Server.equisys.com> To: ietf-pop3ext@imc.org Subject: Non Delivery Report X-Mailer: MailNet 4.10 Sender: owner-ietf-pop3ext@imc.org Precedence: bulk Your Message To: Huw Charles postmaster Subject: Re: Mail collection Was not delivered for the following reasons: Delivery failed to MS:postmaster. Reason: 1 (transfer impossible) diagnostic: 0 (OR name (Email address) unrecognized). MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:MSX1:EMERALD. Original message body follows... POP received a message that does not appear to be for this site: Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by popmail.dircon.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.7) id AAA10571 for equisys; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:04:59 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by popmail.dircon.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA10533; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:04:56 +0100 (BST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) id PAA01746 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 20 May 1998 15:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spot.cs.utk.edu (SPOT.CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.92.189]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA01742 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 15:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spot.cs.utk.edu by spot.cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK) id SAA29464; Wed, 20 May 1998 18:45:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805202245.SAA29464@spot.cs.utk.edu> X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/ From: Keith Moore To: George.Pajari@Faximum.COM (George Pajari) cc: moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore), GK@ACM.ORG, IETF-FAX@imc.org, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Mail collection reply-to: ietf-pop3ext@imc.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 May 1998 15:34:24 PDT." <199805202234.PAA14190@eclipse.faximum.com> Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:45:29 -0400 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@imc.org Precedence: bulk X-Envelope-To: X-UIDL: a65aa2b0c4b4a89ee79fe33ddf1de3cc Status: U > According to Keith Moore: > > If on the other hand, we can do some careful tweaking to POP to let > > it support confirmation of transfer and relaying of envelope information, > > and if ISPs offer the tweaked version of POP rather than what we have > > now, (which are admittedly big IFs) then we can keep mail reliability from > > degrading. > > Obviously I'm missing something here but it would seem to me that the > effort of persuading ISPs to offer tweaked POP (and to get MUA software > developers to support tweaked POP, etc. down the food chain) would seem > isomorphic to the problem of getting them all to use > "SMTP+TURN+authentication" maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether "supporting tweaked POP" is seen as adding significant overhead. It also depends on whether the ISP thinks it can make more money by refusing to support tweaked POP, and offering an SMTP+TURN service. > And if the two problems are equally difficult, isn't pushing > "SMTP+TURN+authentication" better for all? The question is whether the two are equally difficult. > Of course, we might have to rename "SMTP+TURN+authentication" POP4 > (POPng anyone?) in order to fool the masses into adopting it. It seems the > only difference between selling POP+tweaks vs. SMTP+TURN+etc. is the name, > n'est-ce-pas? it's probably easier to tweak POP to transfer mail reliably, than to tweak SMTP to allow it to read messages. Keith p.s. since discussion of POP extensions probably doesn't belong on this list, I suggest that further discussion of these issues be held on ietf-pop3ext@imc.org Received: (from Administrator@localhost) by Blue_Server.equisys.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id AAA00584 for postmaster; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:10:43 GMT Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 00:10:43 GMT From: ietf-pop3ext@imc.org Message-Id: <199805210010.AAA00584@Blue_Server.equisys.com> Apparently-To: postmaster Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) id XAA13766 for ietf-pop3ext-bks; Wed, 20 May 1998 23:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.dircon.co.uk (mailhost.dircon.co.uk [194.112.50.75]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA13754 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 23:23:11 -0700 (PDT) From: postmaster@Blue_Server.equisys.com Received: from Blue_Server.equisys.com (equisys.dircon.co.uk [194.112.44.68]) by mailhost.dircon.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA13068 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 07:26:47 +0100 (BST) Received: (from Administrator@localhost) by Blue_Server.equisys.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id HAA00511; Thu, 21 May 1998 07:31:24 GMT Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 07:31:24 GMT Message-Id: <199805210731.HAA00511@Blue_Server.equisys.com> To: ietf-pop3ext@imc.org Subject: Non Delivery Report X-Mailer: MailNet 4.10 Sender: owner-ietf-pop3ext@imc.org Precedence: bulk Your Message To: Huw Charles postmaster Subject: Re: Mail collection Was not delivered for the following reasons: Delivery failed to MS:postmaster. Reason: 1 (transfer impossible) diagnostic: 0 (OR name (Email address) unrecognized). MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:MSX1:EMERALD. Original message body follows... POP received a message that does not appear to be for this site: Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by popmail.dircon.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.7) id AAA10561 for equisys; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:04:58 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by popmail.dircon.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA10533; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:04:56 +0100 (BST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) id PAA01746 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 20 May 1998 15:41:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spot.cs.utk.edu (SPOT.CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.92.189]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA01742 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 15:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spot.cs.utk.edu by spot.cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK) id SAA29464; Wed, 20 May 1998 18:45:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199805202245.SAA29464@spot.cs.utk.edu> X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/ From: Keith Moore To: George.Pajari@Faximum.COM (George Pajari) cc: moore@cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore), GK@ACM.ORG, IETF-FAX@imc.org, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: Mail collection reply-to: ietf-pop3ext@imc.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 May 1998 15:34:24 PDT." <199805202234.PAA14190@eclipse.faximum.com> Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:45:29 -0400 Sender: owner-ietf-fax@imc.org Precedence: bulk X-Envelope-To: X-UIDL: 0d29d9ca1ce1314426497086bc722de9 > According to Keith Moore: > > If on the other hand, we can do some careful tweaking to POP to let > > it support confirmation of transfer and relaying of envelope information, > > and if ISPs offer the tweaked version of POP rather than what we have > > now, (which are admittedly big IFs) then we can keep mail reliability from > > degrading. > > Obviously I'm missing something here but it would seem to me that the > effort of persuading ISPs to offer tweaked POP (and to get MUA software > developers to support tweaked POP, etc. down the food chain) would seem > isomorphic to the problem of getting them all to use > "SMTP+TURN+authentication" maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether "supporting tweaked POP" is seen as adding significant overhead. It also depends on whether the ISP thinks it can make more money by refusing to support tweaked POP, and offering an SMTP+TURN service. > And if the two problems are equally difficult, isn't pushing > "SMTP+TURN+authentication" better for all? The question is whether the two are equally difficult. > Of course, we might have to rename "SMTP+TURN+authentication" POP4 > (POPng anyone?) in order to fool the masses into adopting it. It seems the > only difference between selling POP+tweaks vs. SMTP+TURN+etc. is the name, > n'est-ce-pas? it's probably easier to tweak POP to transfer mail reliably, than to tweak SMTP to allow it to read messages. Keith p.s. since discussion of POP extensions probably doesn't belong on this list, I suggest that further discussion of these issues be held on ietf-pop3ext@imc.org Received: (from Administrator@localhost) by Blue_Server.equisys.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) id AAA00613 for postmaster; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:10:30 GMT Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 00:10:30 GMT From: ietf-pop3ext@imc.org Message-Id: <199805210010.AAA00613@Blue_Server.equisys.com> Apparently-To: postmaster